Yet another poker thread

[albionmoonlight]

Just some observations. I have read Slansky's first book, and I am playing Turbo Texas Hold 'Em.

I am already a lot better than I was before (like all first timers, I had to learn to be a lot tighter and a lot more aggressive), though I feel I still have a lot to learn. I did not really "get" most of the book until I started to play some actual games.

One thing that I am learning--that is not discussed in the book that I have--is how much the number of players at the table changes things. The default on Turbo Texas Hold 'Em is 10 players. I got accustomed to knowing what are strong/weak hands--accustomed to playing in general--with 10 players.

I am now also playing a game with 5 players and one with 7 players and getting my ass kicked in both of them. The game is played more loose and aggressive with less players (which makes sense because 88 may not be a great hand compared to 9 others, but it may be compared to 4 others.), and I have trouble getting used to it. I also find it harder to seeming always be one of the blinds.

I don't really have a question per se, but I am curious how people with a lot more experience than I have feel that the number of players changes the game.

[thealmighty]

I don't know about the more experienced thing, but it is all about the MATH, imho.

There are a certain number of possible hands in poker. If you play with 5 players, that is 5 of the hands. If you play with 10 players, you have TWICE the number of hands and therefore TWICE the probability that someone has a good one. So you must assume someone, for example, has an ace with 10 players, but not necessarily with 5, and play/bet/act accordingly.

At least, that's the way I figure it.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by thealmighty
I don't know about the more experienced thing, but it is all about the MATH, imho.

There are a certain number of possible hands in poker. If you play with 5 players, that is 5 of the hands. If you play with 10 players, you have TWICE the number of hands and therefore TWICE the probability that someone has a good one. So you must assume someone, for example, has an ace with 10 players, but not necessarily with 5, and play/bet/act accordingly.

At least, that's the way I figure it.

hehe

No offense, almighty, but I'd recommend that potential players rely on more august sources than this.

[QuikSand]

It's important to recall that poker is not simply about having the best hand... it's also about the reward you reap for having said best hand. Even before introducing deception and such, this is fundamental.

So, in the shorthand analysis above - while it is true that with more opponents your chance of having the best hand is lesser - it also stands to reason that the rewards for winning will be greater, simply by virtue of more players to contribute bets.

Not the end of the discussion... but just pointing out that the above ought not be, either.

[Marmel]

I cannot for the life of me remember the name of the book. I shall look it up and report back.

anyway, there are a lot of books on how to be successful in gambling and poker, but this book is the story of a guy (a very experienced poker expert) losing his ass big time....i would say as much of a must-read as these how to book if you are serious about playing.

[ctmason]

Originally posted by Marmel

anyway, there are a lot of books on how to be successful in gambling and poker, but this book is the story of a guy (a very experienced poker expert) losing his ass big time....i would say as much of a must-read as these how to book if you are serious about playing.

I don't mean to pick on you, because I realize your intentions are good. If you find said book, I'd be interested in reading it. Sklansky, Caro, and Lou Krieger have all talked about busting out at one time or another in their careers. They've been very public about it. Krieger wrote about it in his books. Busting out your bankroll happens. If someone lost their ass big time, then they aren't a very experienced player, nor any kind of expert I'd consider as such.

Since we're talking shorthanded play, check out Gary Carson's Hold 'Em book, and Skalnsky and Malmuth talk about it at some length in HEFAP, if memory serves.

It's impossible for me to say "when a game gets shorthanded, you should..." I'm a big believer in situational analysis as a big part of the game (see: Carson). What's most important in a situational analysis and adjustment is whether the game is loose or passive, and the subsets of those terms as it applies to each individual player. Whether there are 10, 8 or 5 players is usually irrelevant if I find I have a good sense of the playing tendency's of my opponents.

IME, shorthanded games become looser games. I'd probably get stoned to death for saying such a bold statement on RGP or 2+2, but whatever, it's been my experience, and obviously yours. It doesn't necessarily have to be so, however -- keep that in the back of your head.

Particularly with a shorthanded game, you'll find the blinds to be more valuable and you MAY (big "may") find that it is increasingly profitable to loosen up your starting hand selection.

If we're talking tournament play then there are some different scenairos, but I don't get the sense that we are.

Hope this helps...

[AZSpeechCoach]

Poker? You poker...you brought her...ha ha ha ha Sorry guys...I've been waiting to use that one.

[thealmighty]

"No offense, almighty, but I'd recommend that potential players rely on more august sources than this."

No offense taken. However, his comment was about the difference in playing with more/less players and that is all I was commenting on, not style or opponent style. More players/less players=different playing style, to some extent.

I was merely pointing out that mathematics is the underlying thread to the game and must be understood, again in my opinion, to excel. Why play certain hands or bet strongly on certain hands and not others is based, at the first level, on probabilities and # of cards left for you to hit your hand...math.